planted with varieties developed by research institutes and related developers. A pest-resistant variety known as IR36 was planted on nearly 28 million acres, a record amount for a single food-plant variety.

In addition to Mexico, Pakistan, India, and the Philippines, countries benefiting from the Green Revo- lution included Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, China, Indone- sia, Iran, Kenya, Malaya, Morocco, Thailand, Tunisia, and Turkey. The Green Revolution contributed to the overall economic growth of these nations by increasing the incomes of farmers (who were then able to afford tractors and other modern equipment), the use of elec- trical energy, and consumer goods, thus increasing the pace and volume of trade and commerce.

1970. Both nations were self-sufficient in cereal produc- tion by 1974.

As important as the wheat program was, however, rice remains the world’s most important food crop, providing 35–80 percent of the calories consumed by people in Asia. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines was founded in 1960 and was funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the govern- ment of the Philippines, and the U.S. Agency for Inter- national Development. This organization was to do for rice what the Mexican program had done for wheat. Sci- entists addressed the problem of intermittent flooding of rice paddies by developing strains of rice that would thrive even when submerged in three feet of water. The new varieties produced five times as much rice as the tra- ditional deepwater varieties and opened flood-prone land to rice cultivation. Other varieties were dwarf (for the same reasons as the wheat), or more disease-resistant, or more suited to tropical climates. Scientists crossed thirty- eight different breeds of rice to create IR8, which dou- bled yields and became known as “miracle rice.” IR8 served as the catalyst for what became known as the Green Revolution. By the end of the twentieth century, more than 60 percent of the world’s rice fields were

156

As successful as the Green Revolution was, the wholesale transfer of technology to the developing world had its critics. Some objected to the use of chemical fer- tilizer, which augmented or replaced animal manure or mineral fertilizer. Others objected to the use of pesti- cides, some of which are believed to be persistent in the environment. The use of irrigation was also criticized, as it often required drilling wells and tapping underground water sources, as was the encouragement of farming in areas formerly considered marginal, such as flood-prone regions in Bangladesh. The very fact that the new crop varieties were developed with foreign support caused some critics to label the entire program imperialistic. Critics also argued that the Green Revolution primarily benefited large farm operations that could more easily obtain fertilizer, pesticides, and modern equipment, and that it helped displace poorer farmers from the land, driv- ing them into urban slums. Critics also pointed out that the heavy use of fertilizer and irrigation causes long-term degradation of the soil.

Proponents of the Green Revolution argued that it contributed to environmental preservation because it im- proved the productivity of land already in agricultural production and thus saved millions of acres that would otherwise have been put into agricultural use. It is esti- mated that if cropland productivity had not tripled in the second half of the twentieth century, it would have been necessary to clear half of the world’s remaining forest- land for conversion to agriculture (Brown, Eco-Economy).

However, the rates at which production increased in the early years of the program could not continue indef- initely, which caused some to question the “sustainabil- ity” of the new style. For example, rice yields per acre in South Korea grew nearly 60 percent from 1961 to 1977, but only 1 percent from 1977 to 2000 (Brown et al., State of the World 2001, p. 51). Rice production in Asia as a whole grew an average of 3.2 percent per year from 1967 to 1984 but only 1.5 percent per year from 1984 to 1996 (Dawe, p. 948). Some of the leveling-off of yields stemmed from natural limits on plant growth, but eco- nomics also played a role. For example, as rice harvests increased, prices fell, thus discouraging more aggressive production. Also, population growth in Asia slowed, thus